Gambling is just another scheme to take money from the needy and give it to the rich, with disastrous consequences.
Any "good" that it can do comes out of this money which the poor need much more than the rich.
There are rich who are just as stupid but they do not bear the consequences of their own stupidity. We do.
Organized crime is the big winner here. The rest of us are big losers.
You can take that any way you want.
Yes they sure do a good job of "regulating" casino gambling to keep out anyone honest.
Only losers gamble online or at all for that matter.
See them "practice" games of chance such as the thing with cherries and lemons.
Their time would be more constructively spent vote bombing or in a street gang selling drugs.
Or debating online.

My opponent is unfortunately mislead as to what online poker has become. Several thousands of people make a legitimate living playing poker online. And no, it isn't because they are luckier than the rest of us, but rather, they wait for people that do not understand poker, like my opponent, and they take advantage of their weaknesses. I myself have already made 60 dollars playing poker online. Not because I get better hands, but because I know the odds, the players, and the positions.

What this means, is that poker may not be for everyone. But it certainly is for some people. Take Tom "Durr" Dwan for instance. He has made millions of dollars playing poker online. If this was not allowed, he would THEN be some poor bum (like my opponent talks about). Therefore, rather than outlawing it and having unregulated back-alley games (like whats happening now), we ought to regulate it, and allow people to make their own choices. Just because my opponent thinks it's bad, does not mean that he gets to make my choice for me. He made his choice, let me make mine.

I believe I have made the irrelevant point that casino gambling is a disaster. Whether poker is a game of chance or skill, there is a lot of money going around so there is enough for the industry to self-regulate. Take Tom "Durr" Dwan for instance. Let him fork up instead of the taxpayers.

As for legalizing it, are you saying other forms of gambling should remain illegal?

Who has ever gone down? Is that state or fed or both?

Internet is different from casino I guess. It's more visible and more political right now.

I guess I really don't know what my opponent is arguing here. He never gave a reason as to why it should not be legalized. He just asks a bunch of rhetorical questions. Although I will answer one of them:

'are you saying other forms of gambling should remain illegal?'
---I do not enter this question into the realm of the current debate. Although I do believe that this should be allowed too and this should be even more closely regulated to make sure that it is fair, I do not believe that this is the vote determining factor within this debate.

In the end, my opponent fails to really make any attacks. Because of this, leave the choice up to each individual person. Therefore, vote PRO!

Well you just may get your wish. Congress is even now considering a proposal to do just that. Please be careful what you wish for next time. It's just another way to squeeze the poor who already have enough destructive things to do with their time and money like joining gangs and buying drugs and selling them too. At least that way they get something for their food and rent money and it goes to a worthy cause like more drugs which is where gambling money ends up anyway but at least you get actual drugs for your money and not three pears and a cherry or the poker equivalent.

Love these infinitely long games. Can't lose. Now look at my opponent's record. Don't ever gamble with my opponent or anyone commenting on this debate online or inline or between the lines or lines or no lines and I see where you online predators hang out now besides leaving comments on one another's profiles about the futility of attempting to decipher Ayn Rand's tortured rants. At least find someone truly indecipherable such as Hegel or myself.

Hegel at least makes sense in the light of, say Taoism but I don't think Marx would have said what he did about religion if he had Eastern religion in mind. Clearly he was talking about the "church."

Yet his insistance on the nonexistence of subjectivity in line with Hegel's views on the subject? It certainly is not Eastern. He has this hidden agenda about the church which is affecting his whole outlook.